Talk:Buddhism and science

Einstein and Buddhism: a widely-cited but spurious quotation

1) Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. and 2) Buddhism is the only religion able to cope with modern scientific needs – Einstein

As a Buddhist and physicist myself, I'd be delighted if this very widely-cited quote really could be attributed to Einstein, but regrettably there is no evidence that it can. It sometimes appears with a reference to Albert Einstein: The Human Side (Princeton University Press, 1954), but there is never a page reference - for the simple reason that the quote does not appear anywhere in that book.

I have personally discussed the reliability of this quote with Einstein scholars (including John Stachel at Boston U, and founding editor of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein), and with the authors of compilations of Einstein quotations (Thomas J. McFarlane, author of Buddha and Einstein: The Parallel Sayings and Alice Calaprice, author of The New Quotable Einstein) - none of whom cite it. In short, neither they nor I know of any evidence that Einstein delivered a speech containing this quote.

Of course, anyone who had unearthed a reliable citation shouldn't hesitate to reinstate the quote - and to inform these scholars, all of whom would be delighted to know about it (as would I)!. Robma 09:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I presume the putative quotes above (that I posted from your deletion) are what you are referring to. Does anyone know where one or both came from? Einstein's spirituality was most influenced by Spinoza, according to Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion (1999, Princeton, ISBN 0691006997) I find no references by Einstein to Buddhism in that volume, which I believe is the most comprehensive examination to date of Einstein's spiritual writings. Of course, Spinoza's and Einstein's "God" was impersonal (non-theistic rather than atheistic), so there are some points of congruence with Buddhism. --Blainster 08:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps these will help address the confusion above:

1.) "When faced with ethical or moral issues which, as in the field of genetics, are becoming ever more pressing, science needs the help of spirituality in order not to forget our humanity. Einstein expresses admirably that need for the union of science and spirituality: 'The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It will have to transcend a personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Encompassing both the natural and the spiritual, it will have to be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, considered as a meaningful unity. . . . Buddhism answers this description. . . . If there is any religion that could respond to the needs of modern scientific, it would be Buddhism.'" Source: "Why the Science and Religion Dialogue Matters: Voices from the International Society for Science and Religion" By Fraser Watts, Kevin Dutton, International Society for Science and Religion Published by Templeton Foundation Press, 2006, p.118 --Stylus72 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

fn reads "A. Einstein quoted in Thinley Norbu, 'Welcoming Flowers' in Across the Cleansed Threshold of Hope: An Answer to the Pope's Criticism of Buddhism, (New York: Jewel Publishing House, 1997)". So this is not cited directly from an Einstein source, but from a Buddhist source. Not available on Google Books so not checked further. Jayarava (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2.) “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....” -- Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29

3.) "...a brief piece entitled 'Religion and Science,' first published in the New York Times Sunday Magazine for 9 November 1930...Einstein explains: ...The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development,... Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. (Einstein 1930, 38)" - The cosmos of science: essays of exploration, By John Earman, John D. Norton, Edition: reprint, illustrated Published by Univ of Pittsburgh Press, 1998, p.96

NB: "...Schopenhauer and his famously inadequate reading of the words of Gautama" (emphasis added); see McMahan, David L. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. OUP, 2008. p. 76. Jayarava (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

4.) In reference to Romba's personal discussion with John Stachel, please note that only "the first two volumes (out of a projected twenty-five) of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein were published during his tenure (as referenced by wikipedia and me looking up the first 10 volumes)." Volume 1, covers The Early Years, 1879- 1902, and Volume 2, The Swiss Years, from 1900-1909. Considering that Volume 2 has 696 pages and only covered nine years and also considering Einstein died in 1955, I'd put my conclusion on until the other volumes, as well as other misc. collections, are reviewed. --Stylus72 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow up on the search of the original Einstein's quote

@Stylus72:@Robma: Wonder if after some years, any update on this matter? Pyll0 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

New York Times Magazine 1930 quote

Buddhism "contains a much stronger element of [the cosmic religious feeling, by which] the religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished – Einstein

The quote listed in the article is stitched together from three different sentences. What he actually wrote was, "The beginnings of cosmic religious feelings already appear at an early stage of development, e.g. in the early Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned from Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling." - so he evidently came by his knowledge of Buddhism through Schopenhauer. --Blainster 09:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks v much for digging this out. I'd argue that the quote as used in the main piece contains such a clunky parenthetical insert that it at best it should be replaced by something closer to what you've given here. I'd actually go further and say that as we seem to be quoting E's view of what Schopenhauer thought of Buddhism, and Schopenhauer's views of Buddhism are notoriously unreliable, the link with science, Buddhism and this Einstein quote is getting pretty thin (effectively a Chinese whisper) and might be better being put elsewhere in this entry. What do you think ? Robma 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I put the paraphrase in the article myself, to indicate that although the actual quote cited on many Buddhist websites (and previously in this article) is incorrect, Einstein did hold that sort of opinion about Buddhism, although he obviously wasn't very interested or he would have looked beyond Schopenhauer. Ashibaka tock 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly neutral

I removed the following statement list from the intro:

"in psychology and studies of consciousness, as well as occasional applications to evolution, quantum theory, and cosmology"

While I know that scientists have said that Buddhism allows for fresh insights, I have yet to see a claim where Buddhism has actually affected these fields. It also seems to be a hodge-podge assemblage of fields that may be of interest to the Buddhist, but most scientists do not look to Buddhism to provide the "insights" in their work though other parts of their lives may be better complemented by Buddhism's hands-off approach to objectification. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The original statement did not claim to identify areas which have been affected by Buddhist input, but simply stated specific areas of science where some scientists have said Buddhism can offer insight. Certainly they may seem like a "hodge-podge" assemblage of fields, but those specified are the subject of the various refereed papers and books cited at the end of the entry. As such, I'd argue they constitute NPOV information of value to disinterested users. Robma 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which scientists said that Buddhism offers insight into quantum theory? --ScienceApologist 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A good starting point for finding out which scientists believe Buddhism offers insights into quantum theory and various other fields is Buddhism and Science: Breaking new ground(Columbia Univ Press 2003)". By the way, isn't an NPOV dispute a bit heavy-handed for an entry which (as far as I can see) makes the rather weak claim that _some_ scientists suggest Buddhism may be useful in offering "insights" ? But perhaps there are other statements that have prompted it ? I certainly feel increasingly unhappy with the direction the entry is taking....Robma 09:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do know that there are many people who claim that their forms of Buddhism are useful to science, but I haven't read any papers or textbooks in quantum mechanics that make such references. --ScienceApologist 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but at the risk of being repetitive, no-one contributing to this entry has claimed anything more than that _some_ scientists have said Buddhism may be useful. Again, I don't really see what is non-NPOV about all this. For example, I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't find a claim on (say) a Christianity-related page that "Some Christians claim to get benefit from their belief" consistutes a non-NPOV Robma 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case, then please provide a citation to a scientist who says as much. Some scientists are Buddhists. Do these scientists claim that Buddhism helps their research? --ScienceApologist 19:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Einstein collaboration

Not substantiated by Einstein's writings and based on a single conversation. I don't think this is worthy of mention. Einstein conversed with many people. --ScienceApologist 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an article he published, not a letter. Ashibaka tock 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppenheimer

While interested in the Gita and Indian religion, never commented on Buddhism directly. Not worthy of mention in this article, therefore. --ScienceApologist 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

216 seems to be under the belief that Buddhism is merely a sect of Hinduism. I am giving up for now, hopefully he'll go away eventually. Ashibaka tock 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism, but it is connected and these scientists studied all of it, they studied Buddhism and Vedic tradition, and they combined it. Now do you just want to pull out Buddhist elements?

It is not clear from Oppenheimer's writings that he was interested in Buddhism. If you find a source that points to Oppenheimer speaking about Buddhism, per se, please let us know. --ScienceApologist 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

amazing, it's in the next section "scientists specifically mentioning Buddhism". Wow, no wonder you suck at editing, you don't read.

Please, 216, read the guidelines on no personal attacks. We're just a bunch of people editting an encyclopedia from various backgrounds. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the reason that quote from Oppenheimer is still in the article is because it deals specifically with Buddhism. The quotes you were trying to include did not. --ScienceApologist 19:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is quite apparent that science seems to be a religion for you that blinds you to the fact that most of these scientists were influenced with the eastern thought of the time.

My personal opinions (which you haven't fingered, I'm afraid) are irrelevant to the task at hand which is making an encyclopedia that is verifiable, neutral, and well-cited. Many of the edits you have made fail these criteria. I encourage you to read through these guidelines and policies of Wikipedia and see if you can pick out the problems. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

you were simply confrontational. I was simply providing sources and you kept on repeating the claim similar to "well there is no evidence that there was any deep influence of eastern philosophy on said scientists". Had you deleated that section, I wouldn't have bothered constantly putting in all the references. I simply provided enough references to prove otherwise. No hard feelings.

Frankly, you failed as you put in your personal opinions without research into the histories and biographies of these scientists.

216, you can sign your responses by placing ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Also, you can indent paragraphs using strings of : at the beginning. --ScienceApologist 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point-Of-View

I attempted to make the the discussion of the influence of Buddhism on quantum mechanics neutral. While it's true that certain scientific luminaries commented from time-to-time on Buddhism/Eastern philosophy, we need to be very careful to prevent people from getting the impression that quantum mechanics is either based on Buddhism or that they share more than superficial similarities. In particular, claims of various authors (Deepak Chopra comes to mind) that science is only properly understood through the lens of Eastern thought is definitely not a perspective shared by most physicists. --ScienceApologist 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

we are talking about the realm of ideas and the influence of many ideas and the CLARIFICATION of concepts which Heisenberg and Bohr clearly pointed out. I hardly find your writing to be "unbiased" since you are denying verifiable quotes in favor of your unverifiable opinions.

I don't think it is helpful to include quotes from one famous scientist or another, except to corroborate the fake Einstein quote which floats around. As an analogy, we could include a quote from Werner Von Braun supporting Creationism on the Creationism page, but it wouldn't enlighten anyone about the relationship between science and Creationism. I think it is better to discuss specific examples of science working with Buddhism in this article, and move all the quotes to Wikiquote. Ashibaka tock 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that our friend joshua is really interested in being helpful--F.O.E. 06:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between study of Buddhism and quantum mechanics

While people do see parallels as in What the Bleep Do We Know, I'm fairly certain that the primary opinion of the mainstream scientific community as that this kind of analysis represents junk science. What do other editors think? --ScienceApologist 15:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, that movie was totally hokey. Ashibaka tock 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy

"Niels Bohr who developed the presently accepted model of the atom together with Ernest Rutherford says," I'm not a physicist, but isn't the currently accepted model of the atom based off of Erwin Schrodinger's model? Rapidflash 05:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Schrodinger discovered the equation which governs the evolution of quantum systems over time. It was Bohr who produced the first quantum theoretical model of the atom. 90.205.92.249 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Want reference on Bertrand Russell's Quote

So far,I have read many Bertrand Russell's book but didn't see this quote on article page. Anyone can find reference on this quote?

Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind. 202.80.255.227 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. If a reference can be found, then someone can put it back up. Otherwise a quote like that shouldn't be on the page.74.5.67.65 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Found a ref. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles like this unfortunately demonstrate the weakness at the core of the Wikipedia project.

This article is so bad I nearly fell off my chair reading it. I am done with Wikipedia. 90.205.92.249 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I often fall victim to perfectionism too. When I start an article, I want it to be perfect from the start: fully cited and researched. Can create a kind of writers block for me sometimes though. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment, though, that I think it's a more modern, Western viewpoint that Buddhism is completely rational and logical at its core, and that superstitious or devotional aspects of Buddhism are unnecessary trappings that are fine overlooking. It might be well suited if we also consider that Buddhism is very rich and has many aspects, and though folks in the West are finding contemplative Buddhist forms or madhyamaka philosophy compatible with modern thoughts on quantum physics that doesn't mean that all Buddhist viewpoints are all that compatible with modern science - in my opinion. It could be more of a Western invention or reinterpretation of Buddhism really. Or another example of how Buddhism transmutes into a new culture, as much as a statement about its underpinnings. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I mean: buddhist tube video about the supernatural - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just got dressed down with this comment concerning my changes: reverted unhelpful, stilted, combative edits by owlmonkey by Langdell (talk · contribs), can you explain what specifically you had problems with? I'm also really curious what constitutes as combative. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of the problems with the version that you reverted to, itemized:

• "Buddhism and science are generally considered to be compatible with each other." - by whom exactly? where is the citation and attribution?
• "Buddhism, eschewing dogmatism, remains neutral on the subject of the supernatural and is open to scientific discoveries." - not all lineages and traditions of buddhism eschew dogmatism or superstition, it's a darn diverse tradition and there is a TON of superstition
• "most scientists see a separation between the religious and metaphysical statements of Buddhism" - who exactly? what is this referring to really? ontological statements in the mahayana sutras?
• Goenka's views on secularism are not universal, they need to be attributed to him specifically when mentioned.
• the structure of the article was haphazard in my opinion

You'll find most of my changes are structural though, and I preferred to tag things than outright delete them. I'm a fan of dialog, let's talk about them here instead of just reverting en masse. Did you have a problem with 'every' structural reordering that I made as well? - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Question, were the structural changes (moving content up or down or reordering things) problematic for you? Were my changes to the WP:LEAD paragraph? Which specific things were combative, stilted, and unhelpful to you? I'm only volunteering here with the intention to be helpful. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you also editing under 81.109.11.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? If so then I should address some of your specific additions as well, not to be polemic but why I weighed in on some of the statements. You added:

• "pure science of mind and matter" is the point of view of Goenka, which is fine, it just needs to be attributed to him.
• Dhamma vicaya is part of the pali canon's view on how one progresses, but not all traditions characterize things that way. i don't want to get into an argument about whether the pali canon is the authentic teachings of buddhism, i'm referring to buddhism here as the full extant of how it is viewed and practiced as opposed to an idealized viewpoint. and I think we need to treat Buddhism that way here.
• eschewing dogmatism. I agree many lineages of buddhism eschew dogmatism and there are teachings that defend against dogmatism, but I think it's false to say that in the full extant of Buddhism no practitioners are fundamentalist. Sri Lanka has examples and I added a citation for that. Japan and China I believe have examples of more fundamentalist interpretations of Buddhism and here I view fundamentalism as an example of dogmatism, perhaps we could discuss that if you disagree.

Also, with respect to Buddhism's analytics and evolved philosophic views — especially in the mahayana lineages — forms Hinduism and Jainism have the same kind of analytic rigor in philosophy, metaphysic, and psychology. It's arguable that buddhism has those elements primarily because there was such a rich dialog and ongoing debate between the schools in India in the first millennium. So I'm not sure we should credit Buddhism for those features as inherent to Buddhism, but something that evolved over time in the later incarnations of Buddhism. See Dignaga and Dharmakirti for example. Their logical contributions were a later addition and revolutionary in my opinion. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

More Citations

I'm going to slowly research the topic more from an academic viewpoint, as opposed to the view of buddhist teachers. Here are some citation ideas for everyone's review:

• Abe, Masao (1985) Zen and Western Thought Edited by William R. LaFleur. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press - In this one Abe proposes that Buddhism and Science are fairly compatible
• Austin, James H. (1998) Zen and the Brain Cambridge, MA: MIT Press - This book also proposes that there is much synnergy between buddhism and science
• Fair, Frank (2005) Buddhism, Christianity, and Modern Science: A Response to Masao Abe Buddhist-Christian Studies 25 (2005) pp.67-74 - This response by philosopher Frank Fair to Masao Abe's earlier article is quite interesting. His main disagreement is around the notion of "karma", which he thinks is ultimately incompatible with science and he's unclear if Buddhism will be able to change in the 21st century to remove some of the classic interpretations of "karma".
• Snodgrass, Judith. (2007) Defining Modern Buddhism: Mr. and Mrs. Rhys Davids and the Pāli Text Society Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East - Volume 27, Number 1, 2007, pp. 186-202

any other suggestions? I'll look for more good ones. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You may also find reliable critical references from the Actual Freedom webpage. - Nearfar (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and physics section

Who are the people mentioned? Why are their views notable? This absolutist conception of shunyata is not mainstream. On this topic see Richard King's "Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism," chapter 3. Mitsube (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea. Please feel free to remove them if you feel up for fixing the section or others here. This article is orphaned and in need of TLC. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The section seemed to contain pseudo-science from non-reliable sources promoting a non-orthodox view of shunyata together with a partial rebuttal of the latter view. It is not very intelligible or encyclopedic and I have removed it. Mitsube (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it [1], and it appears to approach Nondualism. Which in that article, science is addressed in the New Age section. I'll take the original intention and suspect the section can be resorted with better sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism and Science

Buddhism is a mere name. There is no agreed definition for it. Dictionary definition of science is: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

Among the Ariyan Truths pointed out by Lord Buddha (Bhagwan Buddha) is an Ariyan Truth called Dukkha. This Truth is applicable to the life or existence of a human being (birth to death).

Science divides a human being into two: mind and matter. Dukkha treats a human as MindMatter.

Any comparison of Dukkha and Science is false.Dgdcw (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism is largely a cultural recognition. Mind does matter. Science divides as an objective convention. Thanks for bringing up the "truths". Unless I am missing it, this article is missing the 4 noble truths as analogous to the scientific method. Will be looking into this further. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Buddhism and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buddhistethics.org/6/fenn991.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.plumvillage.org/events/view/60/4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Buddhism and quantum physics

"The Heart Sutra explains that: "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is form", which fits closely Nottale's theory of quantum physics, which asserts that matter and space are not different" The idea that the two is connected is a personal opinion and the 'reference' given does not support that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.161.9.251 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buddhism and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801130259/http://investigatingthemind.org/ to http://www.investigatingthemind.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Quantum Mechanics

@JimRenge: Moving this section here for discussion. I don't know why two of the most popular books claiming that Buddhism and Science have a unique relationship wouldn't be relevant to this page. The Wilber book is less known, but since it is a compendium of the founders of QM talking about mysticism, I thought it was relevant. That they have been largely discredited is also relevant to the topic. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Several best-selling, but controversial, books published in the late 1970's popularized the new developments in fundamental physics and touted their similarities to Buddhist and other Eastern metaphysics. For example, The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Both have been criticized as examples of quantum mysticism. A less well known compendium by Ken Wilber, "Quantum Questions," used the writings of prominent physicists to examine the relationship between modern physics and mysticism.

These are surely relevant materials for the article. Obviously it would be helpful if the missing citation were to be supplied. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Buddhism as "foundation" of physics

In this edit Arsenal03031986 has stated:

In very recent times it has been demonstrated how the basic tenets of Buddhism founds [sic] the logico-linguistic basis of physics.

Arsenal cites a paper by Abishek Majhi as the basis of this claim. In the paper, Majhi has performed a personal thought experiment in which he concludes that physics and Buddhism are related. I have argued that this singular paper, by a single author, hardly constitutes an concrete demonstration that Buddhism forms the foundation of the logic-linguistic basis of physics (if, indeed, the phrase "logico-linguistic basis of physics" can be said to have any real meaning at all.) Please discuss. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Arsenal03031986 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Dear @WikiDan61:,

The name is ``Abhishek Majhi`` not ``Abishek Majhi``. It is good to pronounce the name correctly, I believe. I cited two articles which are companions to each other, not one.

There are no thought experiments performed in those articles. If such claim is made, please let me know where in those articles you find the ``thought experiment``.

Yes, these are two singular papers, by a single author and there are no other articles in the published literature till now where a logico-linguistic inquiry regarding the foundations of physics has been demonstrated and the essence of the basic tenets of Buddhism, the central of which , namely, self-inquiry has been manifested. Interestingly, if one reads the articles, one will realize that the discussions relate to physics and logic as a whole and therefore, symbolism and linguistic intricacy become important.

Instead of explaining the meaning of the term ``logico-linguistic``, let me demonstrate or explicate or provide an exposition of the term with the following examples which you will find in detail in those articles:

1) Physical dimensions are words like ``mass``, ``length``, ``time``,etc. are NOT ``numbers`` by themselves. The symbolic abbreviations of those terms as M, L, T are NOT numerals like 1,2,3, etc. However, when the physicist does dimensional analysis, the physical dimensions are used as numbers i.e. M, L, T are used as numerals. Thus, one needs the middle way (madhyamika/madhyamaka/madhyamarg/chatuskoti) to explain such use of language by the physicist. The law of excluded middle in Boolean logic falls short of explaining such use of symbols to have apparently contradictory meanings in the same process of reasoning. Please look into the articles for further details.

2) Consider the following translations:

  ``q1=n q2 such that 0<n<1`` in verbal terms ``q1 is smaller than q2`` 

  ``q1=n q2 such that n>1`` in verbal terms ``q1 is larger than q2``

  ``q1=0 q2`` in verbal terms ``?????`` 

Exact ``zero`` is inexplicable verbally. What can be explicated is only ``extremely small`` in terms of relation between two quantities, which is the essence of measurement in physics. However, this is an essence of emptiness (shunyata) and relational existence (pratityasamutpada) as well. Based on such reasoning if one analyzes Maxwell's definition of electric field as given by him in his own words, one gets an infinite series, of which one can use only the terms that are necessary and sufficient for explaining the observation. For reading more, look into the articles, please.

3) To understand the above, the distinction needs to be clarified between the concepts of ``quantity`` and ``number`` because the former is associated physical dimension but the later is not. For reading more, look into the articles.

4) In view of the above, comes into question the meaning of the statement ``zero quantity`` that appears everywhere in physics and in particular, in the definition of electric field and the definition of derivative -- the concept of limit. This is the essence of the singularity problem in physics, which is founded on such untranslatable statements like the third one among the above three translations.

The above points are very inadequate to express what have been written in those two articles. To understand the usefulness and the emptiness (truth of the articles hold only in relation to the reader's assessment) of such writing it is best to go through self-inquiry by being nobody. By ``self-inquiry`` I mean an analysis of one's own language and reasoning while trying to express some thought and by ``nobody`` I mean the denial of any bias in one's own mind and to try to adopt the middle way through the illusion of categories.

I can not and do not want to write more here because years have been spent to write those two articles. I leave it to my fate and your belief in those articles, none of which I can control. The only request I make is that kindly read the articles carefully, if possible, before denying the modification because this is high time, I feel, that scientists need to go through self-inquiry and have the realization of the middle way for the good of science and humanity. There is a talk on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P66t0Jmc3jc) which you can watch if reading those articles seems painful and time consuming. I rest my case. Thanking you,

Arsenal03031986 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Arsenal03031986: Are you, in fact, Mr Majhi, such that the effort spent to write the two articles precludes you from further explaining them here? The point here is that you have cited two articles by a single author, and claim that these two articles demonstrate that Buddhism forms a foundation of physics. At the very best, all we can claim from this source is that one singular scientist has proposed that Buddhism can be thought of as a foundation of physics. Since neither of Mr Mahji's articles has any citations (except citing each other -- a neat trick if you ask me), this proposition does not appear to have found wide acceptance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I do not know whether disclosing identity here is allowed. Since you have asked, I may reply, yes. My name is Abhishek Majhi and if you are interested, you can find me here (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abhishek-Majhi). Since I have rested my case, I am not going to write a single word to deny your judgement which is just as accurate as you have the ability to analyze the truth. Such relational nature of human reasoning forms the essence of relational truth discussed and demonstrated by Buddha and then by Nagarjuna among other Buddhist scholars of the far past.

Just for your information, the two articles resulted from the split of a single article and the split was suggested by the Editor of the journal. Since those two articles are companions to each other, the citations are there. So, I hope, you now understand that what is ``trick`` and what is ``truth``, it very much depends on how the judge is able to relate to the fact. And then the judgement becomes mostly the reflection of the judge's mindset.

Further, as far as ``citations`` and ``wide acceptance`` are concerned, you are very much correct about this. But, then I found that there are several other articles and books in the references of the page ``Buddhism and Science`` which are not well cited and not widely accepted. I do not have any intention to look down on somebody else's work and therefore, I do not want to pin point any particular one or more of such documents. However, what I intend to demonstrate is the essence of the middle way in your way to make judgment. So, let me consider the following proposition:

   P: A document that is not well cited and not well accepted can not be incorporated as a reference in the Wiki page ``Buddhism and Science``.

The question is whether P is true or false. The answer is that, according to the middle way (madhyamarg), P can be true, P can be false, P can be neither true nor false, P can be both true and false. In a nutshell, the truth of P depends on the CONTEXT and the context is here mainly determined by the ``document`` and how the judge relates to that ``document`` -- this is the essence of relational truth. For you (the judge), P is true when the document is mine and P is false when the document is from somebody (some source) whom(which) you trust or you just believe in. Buddhism is not about only science, rather it engulfs all aspects of human reasoning and that can be realized if you can question your own sense of judgment irrespective of denying or accepting others' views. Quite astonishingly I do not find the mention of self-inquiry anywhere in the page ``Buddhism and Science`` and I can now understand, albeit speculatively, why.

  Thank you for your effort and time in judging my work. I withdraw my attempt to edit the Wiki article ``Buddhism and Science``.

Regards Arsenal03031986 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Arsenal03031986, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Per WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (see also WP:BRD and WP:UNDUE) We better wait until Majhi´s publications are discussed/digested in secondary sources. JimRenge (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)